Waco Tribune-Herald: Texas Two-Step is "Undemocratic"

The system (2.67 / 3)

has never been tested this way before, has it? If the race had not been so close and so competitive, it wouldn't have mattered, would it? It's flawed, isn't it?

---

by: Elsbeth @ Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 18:17:30 PM UTC

New Volunteers (3.40 / 5)

Today I met two dozen new volunteers for the Travis County Democratic Party. Most of them got engaged at their precinct conventions when they met neighbors and realized they knew plenty of other excited Democrats. Now, they're organizing their neighborhoods and getting ready for unprecedented turnout this November.

We've got volunteers who supported just about every single candidate in the primary, and they're all excited to be involved for the general now.

If the caucus is removed, or at least stripped of its delegate-awarding value, then new people WILL NOT TURN OUT. It's simple. These folks, these volunteers, event the 90 delegates from my one precinct alone, are NOT in it for themselves. They're in it for their candidate, to support this person and do all they can to help. Now, they're more engaged and involved than ever.

So tell me, how do you protect the immense organizing opportunity we saw at the caucus, the ability to grow our party from the bottom up, if you strip it of its meaning?

---

by: kath25 @ Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 19:20:20 PM UTC

Not to defend the Tribune-Herald (4.00 / 2)

but the point of a primary or a caucus, as written in the DNC rules, is to reflect the will of voters.

While party building is absolutely necessary and is a great side benefit, the point of any primary or caucus should be to reflect the will of the voters.

---

by: David Mauro @ Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 20:42:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Politics of Parsing (2.75 / 4)

So much of the anti-caucus rhetoric involves suggesting that the caucus attendees don't count or didn't vote. Did the Iowa, Washington, or Maine people not count too? I recall hearing that somewhere.  

---

by: kath25 @ Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 22:06:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I am not familiar with what you're talking about (2.00 / 1)

From what I have read and heard, much of the anti-caucus rhetoric involves the fact that caucuses have lower turnout than primaries and some people are unable to attend caucuses due to the short time window, etc.

Maybe someone else can respond to your question, I just am not familiar with that.

---

by: David Mauro @ Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 22:35:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

its left over Primary static (3.50 / 2)

i had a bad case of it myself until about 2 and a half weeks ago.

---

by: billydanielus @ Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 22:59:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Parsing or apples and oranges? (3.00 / 1)

The Washington state Democratic Party makes the caucus the only measure for selecting delegates. The primary does not count for delegate selection according to this.

The state's hybrid (or not) system illustrates the complexities of the national process for picking caucus delegates, which varies from state to state and political party to political party. Although other states mix a primary and caucuses, Washington's approach carries its own special stamp.

On Feb. 9, both Democrats and Republicans will gather in precinct-level caucuses for the initial round of delegate selection, with the media poised to report which national candidates carried the day.
...

Meanwhile, on Feb. 19, the state will conduct a presidential preference primary for both Democrats and Republicans.
...

The Democrats will ignore the primary completely, as for as delegate selection goes.

Since the caucuses were so well attended (in Texas) this time, maybe we should consider changing our system to match the Washington state model.

That would certainly be some change.

---

by: Elsbeth @ Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 00:39:01 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Washington was a clash between party and legislature (2.50 / 2)

Washington used to just have a caucus, and that's the way the state Democratic party liked it. The legislature then decided to have a presidential primary -- I don't know which party's people pushed the idea.  The Republicans decided to allot their delegates half from the primary and half from the caucuses (the Washington 2-step?), while the Democrats said "we don't like primaries", gave them no impact on delegate selection, and encouraged people to skip the primary altogether.

So a whole bunch of state money was spent on a Democratic presidential primary that didn't count for anything and was largely ignored.

I don't know about Iowa or Maine. I didn't think they had primaries.  

---

by: LSadun @ Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 01:10:06 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

What about the secret ballot? (3.00 / 2)

The Washington state caucus model is an example of how the notion of a "secret ballot" is losing out. I don't know if I like not having a way to vote without everyone knowing my preferences.

It's one thing to be in agreement with my neighbors on how to vote, but what if I'm not in agreement and I feel pressure to vote with everybody else? That seems to water down the whole concept of "my vote," doesn't it?

---

by: Elsbeth @ Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 02:36:00 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

well, it sure ain't perfect (2.67 / 3)

   
    but this is Texas, we're used to a rickety vehicle of government. you know honestly I wasn't familiar with the Texas Two Step until 04. But you know, the caucus process pulled my circle of friends into the political machinery of Texas in their support for Howard Dean, they ended up dragging me to Nelda Spears to get "Deputized" and I had to spend the rest of the damn year bugging South Austin hippies to get out and vote. If they could have just voted for Dean and left disgruntled without having to organize and find some other things about the Democratic party to have faith in and get behind, well lets just say I would'a saved a lot of shoe leather.

    I think you make a really well reasoned argument David, but I haven't heard from anyone (i'm not singling you out here) on how we might tune up or change the precinct caucus/convention/thingamajiggy - system. It seems the real impetus behind the opposition to the two-step is just to toss it out. I know that the results of the two-step left alot of people feeling disenfranchised, especially the elderly - and enfranchisement is sacrosanct in our party, and it should be. Especially for the elderly, the folks who've been carrying this dog and pony show on their backs since LBJ lost the South for a generation.

    I'm interning on a down-ticket campaign now, as a direct result of being involved in the caucus system. I mean the two step has shown this election cycle just what it can bring to our local candidates. It just seems it'd be awfully rash to mess up a good thing just because it has a few dents in it- i mean hell, if it ain't convoluted then it ain't Texas!

    Now I could be wrong, but I don't recall having heard as much concern about the process until we had such a closely contested primary, I'm not saying this is about a candidate, I'm agreeing that the contest exposed the weaknesses and inherent flaws in the system. But I think we can fix those things and make it a better system. I think even more people would feel disenfranchised if we switched to to just one or the other. I've heard no shortage of really outstanding ideas here around BOR on how to fix it. I think this is something we can do. I mean we just can't deny the value of it for our down-ticket candidates, and even our state at large to make its influence count.
 

---

by: billydanielus @ Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 20:00:29 PM UTC

Your arguemnt is very well reasoned, too (3.00 / 2)

That will be the challenge of the West committee: sorting through many good ideas and arguments to find some sort of consensus.

I don't even pretend to have the answers. I've tried to present some points of view on BOR that are usually not heard and I think the debate and discussion we've had from both sides has been excellent.

I am planning on being at the meeting on Monday  morning (and blogging if ACC Eastview has wireless) and hope to see you all there.

---

by: David Mauro @ Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 20:47:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

was it you, Elsbeth or Rbear? (2.00 / 1)

that suggested we move them apart, hold the caucuses later in the year? thanks for the heads up on the meeting!

---

by: billydanielus @ Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 22:57:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not me (2.00 / 1)

But I certainly remember that suggestion. Someone had suggested moving it to the Saturday following Election Day.

---

by: David Mauro @ Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 23:12:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Convenient (3.67 / 3)

Oh, by the way, if you thought the caucus process was inconvenient for voters think about the hearing process. I sure hope they have these hearings during the evenings or on Saturudays because I've got a big old company to help run and Monday mornings just ain't gonna cut it. If they really want input or support make these hearings during non-legislature hours.

Committee members listening in on this blog? Think about that.

---

by: RBearSAT @ Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 12:06:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Suggestions for improvements (3.67 / 3)

I haven't heard from anyone (i'm not singling you out here) on how we might tune up or change the precinct caucus/convention/thingamajiggy - system.

Actually, that's what my article at The Texas Blue was all about.  

---

by: LSadun @ Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 00:59:29 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Why does there need to be (3.00 / 1)

so much imbalance? Why can't the delegates selected at the precinct conventions be based solely on that election day's votes? And insofar as "excitement" of new voters for the process...I think new Texas voters turned out this year because of the overwhelming dissatisfaction of the electorate ~ not necessarily because of the delegate-awarding process used for selecting delegates at the precinct conventions.

It can be fixed. And it should be. I can't recall any other year when the precinct conventions were pushed so hard. And I don't know how anyone can truly know if this point (made by kath25) would turn out to be true going forward:

If the caucus is removed, or at least stripped of its delegate-awarding value, then new people WILL NOT TURN OUT. It's simple.

If our system is so superior for motivating voters, why don't any other states do it the same way?

---

by: Elsbeth @ Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 21:32:47 PM UTC

I agree (3.00 / 2)

I think the # of delegates per candidate should be based on the primary results.  That is the best way to represent the will of the voters.  The delegates can be selected at the caucuses.  

I am somewhat of an activist and I attended my caucus only to sign in and indicate my preference. Then I left. I am a single mom and I had to bring my 2 daughters with me.  The TAKS test was the next day so I had to get the kids to bed.  I am also a professor and even though I brought this up with the administration, evening classes were not cancelled... so any students or professors with evening classes could not attend.  There are so many reasons why people of all ages could not attend.  Though I appreciate the party-building nature of the caucuses, I just do not believe they are a fair way of awarding delegates.

I did volunteer at the local party office to help assemble the convention packets and to process them afterwards.  I can only say I that it seems to me that there is a lot of potential for inaccuracty and confusion surrounding the proceses... it is messy and I think we can do better!

---

by: sander60tx @ Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 00:09:47 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Logistics (3.00 / 2)

The challenge you have with basing the precinct convention delegates on the primary results is getting certified results in time for the convention.  Now that wouldn't be an issue if we move the precinct convention to some day several weeks after the primary.

I think it's a good idea.  However the bigger challenge will be that fewer people will show up to the precinct conventions because they feel the work's already done. There's no carrot to attend the convention.

I've mulled this whole thing over a lot lately and I've come to the conclusion it's time to scrap the primacaucus (much as I hate to say this). You aren't going to be able to satisfy everyone in this argument and any attempts to fix it will run into their own round of problems.

A primary is pretty cut and dried. You know who won when the darn thing is over. So here's a good one for all you anti-caucus supporters. Give us a good way to sustain the enthusiasm and support the Democratic Party received from the caucus. In other words, when that dog catches the car what's the dog going to do with the car?

I've heard very little in BOR about the "day after" if we scrap the primacaucus. I've heard a lot of discussion for why it's wrong but no reasonable approaches to keeping the support going.

So change of direction on this posting. We've heard all the reasons why the primacaucus is good or bad. We haven't heard a lot of how to keep the enthusiasm without the carrot.

Most voters are apathetic after they punch that button (used to be pull that lever, times are a changin'). Once they leave the booth and hear the results they go dormant until the general election. I know that aggravates the heck out of candidates. People support them in the primary and they hope and beg that those same people will be there for them in the general. How do we turn that voting block into energetic if we lose the carrot?

---

by: RBearSAT @ Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 12:02:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Maybe we've got a good thing (0.00 / 0)

I've had some chats today with Democratic insiders in a couple of states to see what's going on with a primary only state.

It's not as pretty as I'd like to say.  In fact it's more about political inside work. The bottom line is that in those states the primary decides the allocation and the delegates and the rest of the business is really "smoke filled room" work that no one else gets to play in.  In fact, the delegates are hand-picked by the party leads. Talk about a "real" democracy. Yep, you guessed it. Not so.

So maybe we've got a good thing going here in TX and we dont' realize it. I'm okay with shifting the process if someone can come up with good democracy in action with a new process.  However let's not toss this puppy out too fast. Maybe shelf it for an election to see if we can find something better.

The bottom line is a primary really only benefits personally the party elite. It does nothing for those that come from the grassroots. In other words, it's a great invitation to a cool party in the Convention city at our expense. BTW, it is an INCREDIBLE party if you're into that.

---

by: RBearSAT @ Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 03:13:57 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Insiders (0.00 / 0)

are the people who work hard for the party. I don't go along with this "smoke-filled room" concept so much.

---

by: Elsbeth @ Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 03:45:00 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Caucus is not the reason or answer for enthusiasm (2.67 / 3)

Do not credit the Texas Two Step for the popularity or activism this election has inspired. People are not organizing and turning out because of the "Two Step".It is happening all over the country. Get over it. It is inherently undemocratic and never should a Democrat advocate anything that undermines the one-person, one vote system.

---

by: REM @ Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 22:04:38 PM UTC

True (3.00 / 3)

The enthusiasm occurred because we had a hard fought, close primary.  Most of the time the vast majority of people don't even participate in the caucus system.  Most people never even heard of the two-step until this year.  They hardly ever participate, because it usually doesn't matter.  This year it mattered and the system was overwhelmed, resulting in much chaos.

---

by: sander60tx @ Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 00:12:44 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Clarification (3.00 / 3)

Even though this year saw unprecedented turnout, let's be clear that the majority of people still did not participate in the caucus system.

The fact that only about 25 to 30% of people who voted in the primary went to the caucus is another reason many don't like that it determines one third of delegates.

---

by: David Mauro @ Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 00:18:55 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Delegate selection (4.50 / 4)

David you continue to drive the point about participation regarding the caucuses. I agree with you that fewer people come back and participate in the caucuses.

But let's look at what the issue is. It's selection of delegates. Delegates are a part of a party's process in determining the candidate of a party in the presidential election. That can be through any number of methods. Some states use a caucus, some states use a primary, and we use a hybrid. But is a process for determining the best candidate for an election, which means finding out who has the best credentials and best organization to carry the ticket to victory. That is a key point to remember.

If you want to talk about unfair, let's bring up the superdelegate. Where's the representation there? In this presidential race all of our best efforts could have been trumped, and some would argue they were, by the superdelegate. If you follow the Clinton argument she should have won the election (I know, I did the taboo) but the superdelegates chose a different path. Remember, I said if you follow that argument.

So before you trash a process that has some resemblance of public participation let's deal with the issue of the superdelegate where no public representation exists.

In case people think I've switched my position on the primacaucus, I haven't. I no longer support it as a means to select delegates. But I don't hold with arguments of participation as a reason to dissolve it. That's a weak excuse in my mind, especially when we still have superdelegates.

---

by: RBearSAT @ Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 14:27:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Attend the hearing, and its sequels (3.00 / 3)

The first hearing has testimony by invitation only, with a mostly informational purpose, but they promise to hold additional hearings in Austin (and around the state) where public input is welcome.  Too bad I'll be out of town for the first one. Also, if you haven't already done so, go to the TDP website and fill out the questionnaire.

It's a lot more useful (although less fun) then rehashing the familiar pro/con arguments.  

---

by: LSadun @ Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 00:55:33 AM UTC

they'd damn well better hold public hearings (0.00 / 0)

if they're gonna change our electoral process, i expect to have the opportunity to have my opinion heard. Where can i find a schedule of the hearings? on the TDP website?

---

by: billydanielus @ Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 23:31:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't think a hearing schedule (3.00 / 1)

has been released yet. I'll try to find out more at the hearing tomorrow.

---

by: David Mauro @ Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 23:34:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Cut and dried (0.00 / 0)

You see, that's why I think this thing is already decided and ready to put to bed. If the hearings are like most public opinion hearings this thing is already set and ready for the presses.  The hearings are just a chance for us to get this off our chests.

Sorry for the cynicism but I've been through this on both sides. Hearings are the "placebos for the public." You think you made a difference and it sure feels good.  However your opinion is just a part of the process.

We'd have had a lot more discussion on this than what's been put forth. Nothing against the process but it's not sounding too "public" in my opinion. Now someone can help prove me wrong.

Committe members? You listening? Make this thing real!

---

by: RBearSAT @ Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 02:26:56 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Maybe it's time to rethink the whole darn thing (0.00 / 0)

I just finished reading articles in the NY Times article and Politico.com about the cost and delays in getting Denver ready for the Convention. Extra lights because what's there for the Nuggets is not enough for the Convention? Having to reinforce the roof just to support the 300,000 pounds of equipment?

All for a convention that will get at best 2-3 hours a night with most of the time allocated to network commentary. Besides that's when Americans discover the Quilting Network and the mating habits of dung beetles, aka channel surfing.

It is interesting that Obama will be breaking with tradition and allow the American public in to his coronation in the Broncos stadium.

But the issue is how much we pay to get a candidate in position for the general election starting at this thing we call a primary/caucus/hybrid. There's gotta be a better way.

---

by: RBearSAT @ Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 16:21:26 PM UTC

So ... let's have some fun (0.00 / 0)

Now that I've switched positions on the primacaucus let's talk about the change. After looking at the SDEC delegate selection process it looks like we're really only talking about 25% of the delegates which is the 43 At-Large delegates.  Oh, BTW, this pool of delegates we are squabbling about is only 19% of the total number of delegates to the National Convention.  Forget all rancor about this number.  When you factor in the Supers it takes the percentage down pretty low.

The question is do we get rid of the At-Large delegates which come from the Convention floor or do we keep them and allocate that percentage based on the primary.  We still have pledged and unpledged (aka the Supers) to deal with. Do we bind them to the primary vote? I mean, if we're going to be fair the total number of delegates, and that means ALL of them, allocate based on the primary vote. It's not Winner Take All but it starts toward it.

Let's say we leave the Supers alone (trust me, I'm not done with them by any stretch) and only focus on the rest. That means we use the primary vote to allocate the 169 delegates based on the allocation formula in place which rewards Democratic voting in prior elections.

Now the precinct convention is really about who to send to the SD or County conventions and eventually who to send to the State Convention.  So since we've changed the way the delegates get allocated the only real thing going on at the State that has any delegate control is the business of the party (e.g. resolutions, platform).  You know, the really, really "interesting" stuff. So, do we control who gets to decide that stuff based on who wins the primary?  In other words, what if Clinton won the majority but more Obama delegates show up at the precinct convention? Do we penalize their support by letting the Clinton delegation get more delegates? I mean, these are two different issues here.

Remember, we're talking about the morning after. We have to think of these things people. Let's not act like our current administration and just "win the war." Start talking about the process. If you're going to show up at these hearings come prepared to have intelligent discussion.

---

by: RBearSAT @ Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 17:53:35 PM UTC